Campaign Series II?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

A) So, yes, I think a 'hit' (whatever that may constitute) on an engine, could knock-out a tank.

B) Having 'Engineers' with a zero assault range... sounds like a good suggestion... I wonder how hard it would be to make that into an optional selection?

C) As to the Russians not being able to change their military industry on the fly... well that's something they had to contend with. But just because they 'stuck' with something doesn't mean it was a good idea... does it?

D) Yes, as far as I know there where 'ap' rounds for many small arms... 50 cal... 30 cal... and so on.

E) As to why mess with something that works... well I guess that depends on your point of view about what defines 'work' doesn't it. Everyone should be able to play the game in what ever form they like... original, modded and so on. For me, its a great game... with a lot of things that could be made to work much better, eh?


Dennis

A) There are stories about Tigers being knocked out by mortars when their radiators were hit. And, as Jason pointed out, your computer monitor is flat the field of battle is not. So your sloped armor idea did not pass the test. And, there are always opportunities for "miracle" hits.

B) I would like to see the "all powerful" German engineers be clipped and other country engineers be upped when firing on hard targets. I was being facetious in that comment.

C) You missed the point or did not understand. The Soviets could not make quick changes and thousand of their soldiers were given inadequate weapons and obsolete structures. Relative to the game there should be no changes to what ATR squads should, and could, do.

D) The 50 cal round is still the most effective vs armor, for being a machine gun round.

E) I do not believe that it is wise to be able to play a game any way you choose (especially when playing in a club and reporting games on a ladder). The game should be played the way it was intended. Remember what an animal would look like if designed by committee?

How you play the game is surely up to you. Changing how the game is played is up to them (the team). Watering the product down through numerous "options" is never an answer. Ask Lincoln what he thought about being right all the time or pleasing all the people all the time?
As for me I like updates that improve the look and play of the game. Changes that do not make sense will be resisted at all costs.
As I have already stated; The game has lasted for many years, even unsupported. Why take the risk of making fundamental changes that could take away what has made it last for so long?

You can make a Frankenstein monster by sowing so many different parts together. Why not just give the original guys a haircut and lessons in etiquette?

HSL